Marco Rubio went on to say, “the Cubans have agreed to release political prisoners and allow more internet access; however, they are creating no economic openings, no concessions on freedom of speech, no concessions on elections, no concession on freedom to have alternate political parties, no concessions on having elections.” Where are the democratic concessions from Communist Cuba? But this is Obama’s MO, giving away the farm unilaterally, ,”in exchange for nothing”. Rubio stated that Barack Obama … he is the worst negotiator in modern US history.

“My interest in Cuba has been the furthering of democracy and freedom,” Rubio said. “Nothing the president will announce today will further that goal…It’s part of long record of coddling dictators and tyrants this administration has.”

“They’ve created no economic openings, no concessions on freedom of speech, no concessions on elections, no alternative political parties. …The idea that this leads to democratic opening is absurd, but it is par for the course for an administration possibly giving away unilateral concessions for Iran or Cuba in exchange for nothing.”

RUBIO RIPS OBAMA … “Nothing the president will do will further that goal” of Democracy and freedom

Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is slamming President Obama over the deal to release an American held in Cuba.

“President Obama’s actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government,” Menendez, known for his tough stance on Cuba, said in a statement.

“There is no equivalence between an international aid worker and convicted spies who were found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage against our nation.”

American aid worker Alan Gross, who was held in Cuba for five years for trying to set up Internet for a small Jewish community, was released on Wednesday as the U.S. released three Cuban agents convicted of spying.

Menendez said the move “sets an extremely dangerous precedent.”

“It invites dictatorial and rogue regimes to use Americans serving overseas as bargaining chips. I fear that today’s actions will put at risk the thousands of Americans that work overseas to support civil society, advocate for access to information, provide humanitarian services, and promote democratic reforms.”

It is hard to believe it has been 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall …

Nov. 9, 1989, 25 years later and it seems like yesterday I can remember watching the news of the German people hammering, chiseling and tearing down the Berlin Wall, symbolizing the freedom of the East German people and the defeat of Communism. Thousands of East Berliners poured into West Berlin and freedom. It was a moment in history that you remember where you were when you saw the images of the fall of Communism and the rise of freedom. It is a forever remembered moment in history for the world, not just Germany. The people celebrated in the streets, as Germans shed their hammers and sickles for hammers and chisels and brought the wall down forever.

White balloons spanning a stretch of the former death strip floated over hundreds of thousands of revelers in the German capital on Sunday, culminating a day of celebrations to mark 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

More than 300,000 people gathered in Berlin to watch a light installation of 8,000 helium balloonstracing a nine-mile stretch be released into the night sky, police said. The illuminated balloons snaked past historic locations such as Checkpoint Charlie as part of a celebration that included music and fireworks at the city’s Brandenburg Gate—a location once circumvented by the wall.

Speaking earlier in the day, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the fall of the Berlin Wall proof that dreams could come true during a ceremony to mark the event’s 25th anniversary. She added that its collapse offered hope to regions where “freedom and human rights are threatened or even trampled on.”

For days, celebrations throughout Germany have been commemorating the opening of the East German border on Nov. 9, 1989. The breaching of the border heralded the collapse of the Communist system and led to German reunification less than a year later.

This year’s commemoration of the fall of the Iron Curtain may also feel more poignant because there is a palpable sense that peace in Europe in 2014 is more fragile than it was at the 20th anniversary in 2009.

In her speech at the wall memorial on Bernauer Strasse on Saturday afternoon, Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, had explicitly emphasized the geopolitical resonances of the event, instead of indulging in personal reminiscences.

“We have the strength to shape things, to turn things from bad to good, that is the message of the fall of the wall,” she said. “These days, that message is directed at Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and many, many other regions in the world.”

Let us never forget what real leadership looks like. Where US President Ronald Wilson Reagan not only went to Berlin, Germany on June 12, 1987 and gave his famous speech when he uttered those famous words that would eventually come true … “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall,” but also helped bring about the fall of Communism. Wow, imagine that, a president with a spine and resolve to effectuate real change that brought liberty to millions, not one apologizing for America’s actions. A president that looked to unify people, not divide them. A president that looked to end Communism, not partake in it. God bless Ronald Reagan. These days we can only say, what a novel concept.

Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city.

We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it’s our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom. But I must confess, we’re drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer Paul Lincke understood something about American presidents. You see, like so many presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.]

In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

UNBELIEVABLE ACTIONS OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION … ACTUALLY THIS SHOULD BE TERRIFYING TO AMERICANS.

To attract people, to win over people to that which I have realized as being true, that is called propaganda. In the beginning there is the understanding, this understanding uses propaganda as a tool to find those men, that shall turn understanding into politics. Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct.
I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. (Joseph Goebbels)

What might be most shocking about the below Valerie Jarrett interview with ‘Top That’ on Pop Sugar.com is that Democrats and especially the Obama Administration does not even hide it anymore that they and the media are the Democrat-Media Complex. White House adviser Valerie Jarrett was out in LA this week meeting with television and movie producers and writers to encourage them to include favorable Obamacare mentions in their scripts. ARE YOU KIDDING!!! A government going to the media to shill their agenda for script and product placement to make it appear that they are mainstream and brainwash the people with propaganda. This is still the United States, is it not?

“That’s the cool thing,” a host said to the presidential advisor. “You’ve been reaching out to people that are, you know, outside of the norm of what the president might work with. Who else are you working with? Like celebrities, personalities, things like that?”

“You name it,” said Jarrett. “That’s part of why I’m in L.A. I’m meeting with writers of various TV shows and movies to try to get it into the scripts.” When Jarrett says “it into the scripts,” she’s referring to getting references to Obamacare, the president’s signature legislation, into the scripts of TV shows and movies.

Control of the arts and media was not just a matter of personnel. Soon the content of every newspaper, book, novel, play, film, broadcast and concert, from the level of nationally-known publishers and orchestras to local newspapers and village choirs, was subject to supervision by the Propaganda Ministry, although a process of self-censorship was soon effectively operating in all these fields, leaving the Ministry in Berlin free to concentrate on the most politically sensitive areas such as insuring that both major newspapers, and the new far-reaching, instantaneous state radio presented the unified Nazi worldview. In his 1933 speech, “Radio as the Eighth Great Power” Goebbels said:

“We .. intend a principled transformation in the worldview of our entire society, a revolution of the greatest possible extent that will leave nothing out, changing the life of our nation in every regard …

The following are Joseph Goebbels’ quotes. It would be pretty difficult to tell whether they were from the Nazi minister of propaganda, or Team Obama:

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” (Joseph Goebbels)

“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.” (Joseph Goebbels)

Does President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry realize that Russian President Vladimir Putin is former KGB … he has no shame.

Secretary of State John Kerry made an appearance on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’today to discuss the current crisis with the Russian invasion of the Crimea region in Ukraine. Sec. Kerry spoke sternly toward the Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine. Kerry said to David Gregory, “you just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests.” Does the Obama administration understand that Putin thinks that you do invade another country to assert your interests? Kerry’s tough talk ought to make Putin reconsider invasion. NOT!!!

Well, we’re now discussing all of the options. This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th-century behavior in the 21st century, and there’s no way to start with that if Russia persists in this, that the G8 countries are going to reassemble in Sochi. That’s a starter. But there’s much more than that.

Just a note to Barack Obama and John Kerry, Vladimir Putin is not John Boehner nor Mitch McConnell.

Well, we’re now discussing all of the options. This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th-century behavior in the 21st century, and there’s no way to start with that if Russia persists in this, that the G8 countries are going to reassemble in Sochi. That’s a starter. But there’s much more than that.

Russia has major investment in trade needs and desires. I think there’s a unified view by all of the foreign ministers I talked with yesterday, all of the G8 and more, that they’re simply going to isolate Russia. That they’re not going to engage with Russia in a normal, business-as-usual manner.

Because Russia is inviting opprobrium on the international stage. There could even be ultimately asset freezes, visa bans. There could be certainly a disruption of any of the normal trade routine, and there could be business drawback on investment in the country. The ruble is already going down and feeling the impact of this.

And the reason for this, David, is because you just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests. There are ways to deal with this. And President Putin knows that. President Obama yesterday offered mediation. There are plenty of ways to protect Russian-speaking people in Crimea or other parts of Ukraine. But they are really sort of a hidden pretext here, possibly trying to annex Crimea.

Remember when Barack Obama made the snide, wise-a$$, ridiculing comment during the 2012 presidential debates to GOP candidate Mitt Romney regarding Russia and that the 1980′s want their foreign policy back? And everyone thought Obama was so cute making such a witty comment. So what do you think of Obama’s comments now as Russia and Vladimir Putin have invaded Ukraine. Just curious America, how’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for ya? Where is your Moses Obamamessiah now? By the way Barack, how do those rose colored glasses fit?

Fox News’ Bret Baier opened a segment of his show Friday night by flashing back to an October 2012 presidential debate where President Obama ridiculed Republican presidential nominee Romney about his concern over Russia’s “geo-political” threat.

“You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”

Mitt Romney’s intelligent, powerful and correct retort was as follows:

“Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe … and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin …”

Is it any wonder why at this moment so many Americans wish that had a do-over of the 2012 presidential election and they would not vote for Barack Obama. He has been wrong and an epic failure on everything in be domestic and foreign policy. What else would you expect but snark from an individual who was completely unqualified to be president?

The FCC blinked and has canceled the media surveyand plans to evaluate the coverage of media outlets in the Obama’s administration to attempt to violate the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press. As stated at the Washington Examiner, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” However, under the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission was planning to send government contractors into the nation’s newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public’s “critical information needs.” As per The Obama Administration, of course. The very agency that controls the licensing for the media was now going to inspect them for content and whether they were telling the correct stories. UNREAL. The now canceled study was known at the FCC as “the CIN Study” was never put to an FCC vote, it was just announced. Imagine that. Why does this reek of IRS-gate? Or AP-gate? But in an act of conscience and bravery, FCC commissioner Ajit Pai came forward and brought the story to the public’s attention in a Wall Street Journal column last week.

First FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai brings the scheme to light and the FCC removed some of the controversial questions

The Federal Communications Commission cancelled a plan to evaluate the coverage of major media outlets Friday after a tidal wave of media criticism alleged the agency was attempting to influence and regulate the news media industry.

“In the course of FCC review and public comment, concerns were raised that some of the questions may not have been appropriate,” the agency said in a statement Friday. “Chairman Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required.”

However, despite the fact that the FCC had to pull the plug on this survey because of the negative attention and anti-First Amendment look of this attempt by the government to regulate the media, FCC Chair Wheeler said that it was not an attempt to do so. Sure it wasn’t, so then why cancel the study … hmm? Who backs of an attempt to limit the media unless you were caught red-handed? But instead, they continue to dent what their real intentions were. America needs to wake up … the Obama administration is as lawless as it gets.

Despite a response letter from FCC Chair Tom Wheeler saying the study was not an attempt to force news organizations into changing their coverage, the agency conceded the battle and Wheeler called for the removal of the questions entirely.

“Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America’s newsrooms is false,” the statement said. “The FCC looks forward to fulfilling its obligation to Congress to report on barriers to entry into the communications marketplace, and is currently revising its proposed study to achieve that goal.”

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Does President Obama really think no one at FOX will see a government spy in our newsroom? Tonight, an FCC commissioner goes ON THE RECORD and blows the whistle on a plan to install spies in newsroom. They call it something else, like a monitor. But no one is that stupid. We know what they are trying to do.

The FCC commissioner who blew the whistle is here to go ON THE RECORD. Commissioner Ajit Pai joins us.

Nice to see you, sir.

AJIT PAI, FCC COMMISSIONER: Thanks for having me.

VAN SUSTEREN: So your op-ed blew the whistle on this. What is it the FCC wants to do and why you wrote your op-ed?

PAI: The FCC is proposing to do what it is calling a Critical Information Needs, or CIN, study. They will send researchers into newsrooms across the country, television and broadcast and newspapers, to try to figure out why they cover the stories they do. They have identified eight categories of news they think news people should be covering. Some of the questions they ask were highly technical. They are asking reporters, for example, have you ever wanted to cover a story and were told you can’t do so. As I looked into the study design, I got concerned about what it implicated for our First Amendment values. That’s why I wrote it in the “Wall Street Journal.”

VAN SUSTEREN: What’s been the response by the other members of the FCC?

PAI: I haven’t talked to all my colleagues, but I am pleased to report, tonight, the chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, instructed the contractor, who will be doing the study, to remove questions from the study relating to news philosophy and editorial judgment. That’s a positive step but the devil is in the details when it comes to the actual study as implemented

A proposed FCC study that would send government researchers and monitors into newsrooms to learn why organizations select to cover the stories that they do does not sit well with Charles Krauthammer. He said the government’s stated “critical information need” for such a examination reminds him of something that would take place in Moscow and Kiev.

“As if the IRS, and the EPA, and NLRB haven’t done enough damage, the FCC now has to trample on what rights are remaining.”

WHEN WILL THE TYRANNY STOP WITH THIS OUT OF CONTROL IMPERIALISTIC PRESIDENT?

It would appear that Barack Obama wants to put government FCC monitors in America’s news rooms to determine why media outlets cover certain stories. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! So now we are going to have government lackeys in news rooms to monitor and make sure that the media is covering the stories they want them to? Could Barack Obama and the Obama administration possible trample on the United States Constitution and Freedom of Speech any more?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As reported at Mediaite, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal bringing people’s attention to this study, saying “the government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.” And while participation is technically voluntary, ignoring them would not be a wise decision for any news outlet that wants an FCC license. We all know that the MSM is bias and pretty much in lockstep leans to the left, but it is not the governments job to interfere with what they report or how they report . “Participation is voluntary—in theory,” supposedly; however, the FCC’s questions, queries and interrogations may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore as it is this very government agency that could put a media outlet out of business if they spitefully withhold an FCC license. But of course the Obama administration has never gone after or targeted a specific group of people who opposed him, have they … IRS-GATE!

AMERICA, THIS IS WHAT TYRANNY LOOKS LIKE! LET’S JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT … THIS IS ANTI-AMERICAN. WELCOME TO OBAMA’S USSRA.

An Obama administration plan that would get researchers into newsrooms across the country is sparking concern among congressional Republicans and conservative groups.

The purpose of the proposed Federal Communications Commission study is to “identify and understand the critical information needs of the American public, with special emphasis on vulnerable-disadvantaged populations,” according to the agency.

However, one agency commissioner, Ajit Pai, said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Wednesday that the May 2013 proposal would allow researchers to “grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.”

He also said he feared the study might stifle the freedom of the press.

Who is Obama kidding?

This is just heinous as Obama uses the death of Daniel Pearl to make it appear that he is for Freedom of the Press

“Reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

“reminded us that there are those who would go to any leangth in order to silence journalists …”

“A well informed citizenry that is able to make choices and hold governments accountable …”

WOW, IF THIS DOES NOT WAKE PEOPLE UP, NOTHING WILL … LIB ATTY AND OBAMA SUPPORTER BLASTS OBAMA’S ACTIONS

Last night on ‘The Kelly Files,’ Jonathan Turley, a liberal Constitutional attorney and Obama supporter said a mouthful last night with regards to the imperial president, Barack Obama’s “unilateral” and Unconstitutional actions. Turley stated, “I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left” and Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism.”

This is a must watch interview and remember, this is coming from a lib. Turley is basically describing … “TYRANNY”.

KELLY: Let me ask you about this because in that soundbite we played before we went to commercial, you said the framers would be horrified because everything they did was to create balance between the branches of government and we’ve lost that.

TURLEY: Well, I’m afraid it’s quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.

And what we’ve been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that’s what the president is doing. I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.

KELLY: We heard a lot of objections when President Bush expanded the powers of the presidency from the left and from the media. They haven’t been raising the same objections now that we have a Democrat in The White House. And you say they do so at their own peril.

TURLEY: I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.

KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What’ so bad that will come of this?

TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don’t believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we’re beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, ‘I’m going to ignore this,’ or, ‘I’m going to shift funds that weren’t appropriated by Congress into this area.’

The president’s State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it’s dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we’ve never seen it to this extent.

KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn’t have — they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits –which they’ve done — I mean, what are they supposed to do?

TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they’re just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.

But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.

I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn’t matter what party held the White House. But what we’re seeing now is the usurpation of authority that’s unprecedented in this country.

But like I said, what is a handshake among communist comrades, water does seek its own level now, doesn’t it? It would appear that Hot Air agrees as they opine, “One’s a communist who’s reduced his country to ruins, the other’s Raul Castro”.

But of course CNNwas quick to defend and make excuses for Ovama’s actions. Hmm, guess it was a good thing Adolf Hitler was not attending.

Obama knew, of course, that Castro would be on stage. But refusing to shake Castro’s hand would not have been in keeping with Mandela’s legacy of reconciliation. And it was not the first handshake between American-Cuban leaders. In 2000, at the United Nations, then-President Bill Clinton shook hands with Fidel Castro, the leader of the Cuban Revolution, its first revolutionary president, and Raul’s brother.

Obama says he wants to improve relations with Cuba, but disagreements over human rights violations and other issues continue to keep the countries apart.

The handshake came before Obama’s speech, in which he made remarks about reconciliation.

“It took a man like Madiba to free not just the prisoner, but the jailer as well – (applause) – to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you; to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion and generosity and truth,” Obama said.

The President also made sure to include a comment about freedom, which seemed directly aimed at dictatorial regimes.